Jump to content

Talk:Television licence

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by H7 (talk | contribs) at 13:01, 2 January 2014 (→‎Liechtenstein). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconTelevision Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
???This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Talk:Television Licence/Archive 1

Are you sure about the Netherlands

When I lived there (8 years up to 1997) a TV license was required (or a radio license), and I received several license demands forwarded to me by post for a couple or three years after I had left the Netherlands. Of course, the law could have been changed, but has this been checked properly? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.47.129.61 (talk) 00:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK - I checked. The law changed in 2000 with the abolition of the TV and the radio licenses, as they were proving costly (not sure in what sense "costly" was meant exactly). Perhaps this information could make its way into the main article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.47.129.61 (talk) 00:30, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What about ITV?

The first paragraph of the UK part doesn't mention ITV? Surely ITV is bigger than Channel 4, and if there is a particular reason why it isn't counted in the list of "independent public broadcasters" and explanation would be good. And what of channel 5?

The United Kingdom has three independent public broadcasters, the BBC which is funded primarily by a TV licence, Channel 4 which is funded by advertising and S4C which is funded through a combination of direct government grant, advertising and in an indirect sense through the licence fee (see below). The BBC is by far the biggest broadcaster in terms of funding and breadth of output. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.244.153.18 (talk) 09:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Things To Do

Opinions of TV Licencing

A proper dicussion on the advantages and disadvantages of using a TV Licence. Perhaps comparing this to other methods of funding public television. User:Pit-yacker 14:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Countries with TV Licences

Countries to Add

When adding Czech Rep, which I was sure had a licence fee, did some digging on Other nations. Problem is a lot of public broadcasters dont have English versions of websites. However I have found two reports that may be of use. HOWEVER, these are 2000 figures, of course these will have undoubtly changed, in some cases nations may have scrapped their licences. So we need to get uptodate figures!:

1. According to http://www.obs.coe.int/about/oea/pr/service_public.html the following countries also have a TV licence:

  • Belgium €189 (But abolished in the Flemish community)
  • Hungary €28 (Abolished 2002)
  • Iceland €236 (€338 inc Radio)
  • Macedonia€49
  • Poland €35
  • Portugal - No TV Licence (abolished) but it appears to have a €16 "radio licence" instead. http://www.ero.dk/documentation/docs/doc98/official/pdf/ECCREP084.PDF says a combined radio/tv licence of €19.56
  • Romania €13
  • Slovenia €126
  • Slovakia €20

2. Another Document written in 2000 (http://www.obs.coe.int/oea_publ/iris/iris_plus/focus6_2000.pdf.en states that:

  • Bulgaria: 1998 Broadcasting Act instituted a TV licence but this wasnt due to start until 2003. The fee was fixed at 0.6 of the minimum wage and collected by the National Electricity Company under the presumption that everyone has a TV. Waived for deaf and blind. [1] appears to suggest it is still not active.
  • Poland:Waived for over 75s.

Also:

http://www.mediasouthasia.org/Colomboworkshopforwebsite010604.htm

  • Lesotho Abolished 2003 [13]
  • Cameroon [14] CRTV is funded by a 1% tax on the income of all in employment.
  • MalawiSection 56 of The Malawi Communications Act 1998 [15] allows for a licence fee to be levied. Cant find any thing to say the amount or if it ever started.
  • Mauritius Mauritius Broadcasting Corporation is funded by a licence fee on the electricity bill of all homes own a television fee. The Licence fee makes up 60% of MBC's funding [16]

[18]


User:Pit-yacker 14:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TBD

There should perhaps be something about U.S. views added to the "Opinions of television licensing systems" section, but it needs to be sourced, not based on someone's half-baked theory of American exceptionalism. I can well imagine that many Americans are amazed to learn that televisions must be licensed in most of Europe. It would be even more interesting to note whether there is anyone arguing for a reintroduction in those countries where the licence has been abolished. I was surprised to read that some Eastern European governments are considering introducing a TV licence; I would have thought licences were simply an anachronism from the age when TV was a luxury, which persists because of a ratchet effect.

There should also be more added about the history of radio/TV licences. While it may (or may not!) be the case that that licence fees are now used to fund public broadcasters, this was not always the case. In the UK, radio licences were introduced in 1904 at the behest of the Armed Forces, which wanted to maintain control of the new technology. The BBC was not government-funded (or even created) till the 1920s. --jnestorius(talk) 14:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


All coutries listed

  • How much is it? Either rate or percentage?
  • What discounts are available?
  • Is licence charged on per dwelling/household/tv basis
  • What is it applicable to eg Internet, Radio etc,
  • What does it fund?
  • What proportion of public broadcasting funding does it represent?
  • How is enforcement accomplished?

User:Pit-yacker 13:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notes on the US Section

which presumably proved to the American government that it did not need any sort of scheme such as a licence fee to force the end user to pay for the services he or she was listening to or watching.

But the next sentence says they saw the need to create public broadcasting paid for from taxation. If the licence is looked at as purely a way of funding public broadcasting, the two sentences contradict each other.


An additional factor is the somewhat different meaning of the term license (licence) in the USA. A license is a form of regulation, not taxation, i.e. a (usually inexpensive) document that says the holder is allowed to do something. Actions that can potentially harm others (such as driving on the public roads, or operating a television transmitter) are licensed. Actions that do not infringe on the rights of others (such as operating a television receiver) are not. Most Americans would be outraged at the thought of needing a license, i.e. government permission, to watch TV or listen to the radio. Because of this different meaning of the word license, the "television license" of Europe and the UK would probably be referred to as a "television tax" or "user fee" if it were proposed in the USA.

AFAICT, this isnt really relevant? At the end of the day the "televison licence" is the name of a hypothecated tax for funding public broadcasting. In the same way that the article on hypothecated taxes says that fuel tax is used on roads in the US. So even if it was called "user fee" at the end of the day it is the same thing. In other words its like saying the French "Redevance audiovisuelle" isnt a licence fee because they dont call it "licence fee". In that context, the phrase "Most Americans would be outraged..." is an opinion of the writer. It would depend how well the government of the day sold the new "tax".

ok, the USA section has been improved, but you guys are still not acknowledging the fact that a TV license would be a violation of the US Constitution, specifically the 4th Amendment which the Supreme Court has interpreted as specifying a right to privacy. In the USA we have a fundamentally different philosophy of government. You see, in Europe, where they used to have strong monarchies, there is a philosophy that The King Will Take Care of Us, and that the King gives people rights. In the USA, We the People are the Sovereign, we automatically have rights without having to get the from a monarch, and it is We the People that give the government permission to do things. So, if you are on your own land, and you have a device that only receives waves, and cannot affect others, the government is viewed as not having any right to tell you not to use said device. THAT is the reason why we don't have TV licenses in the USA. *not* because it would somehow be "infeasible" or "unnecessary". And I defy any foreigner who claims otherwise to show me where the FCC or any other entity of the US Government ever considered a TV license. It is fundamentally antithetical to American philosophy on BOTH the left wing and the right wing. Anyone born and raised on US soil would know what I'm talking about here. It's a fundamentally different culture from Europe.71.116.85.218 01:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

if you are on your own land, and you have a device that only receives waves, and cannot affect others, the government is viewed as not having any right to tell you not to use said device. Incorrect. See scanner (radio). Some spectrum is free, some is not. --jnestorius(talk) 14:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jnestorius: no, you are incorrect. I personally own a scanner, bought it at Radio Shack, a well known US retailer of electronics. I don't have any kind of license for it, and I certainly have never been told not to use it by any government agency. I use it to monitor police and fire department transmissions for entertainment purposes, as well as informational purposes in emergencies such as earthquakes etc. Now, if I were to use said scanner to gain information to make it easier to commit a crime, that would be illegal. But owning the scanner itself, in my own home, is not illegal. Some states do require a license for a scanner if mobile, for those reasons. But not a home scanner. 4th amendment. --Brian (same guy as 71.116.85.218 above)71.116.101.119 (talk) 04:46, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Okay if the reason is because of the 4th Amendment can you provide a credible source that says so? Surely if that's the case there must have been some investigation of this - here in the UK the licence fee is particularly unpopular amongst the "We worship you oh US" elements on the right (IMHO this is really because of perceived BBC bias rather than any consistent ideological basis although there are exceptions) and surely there must be at least one paper explaining why the US has not gone down this route and why it is so great? Timrollpickering (talk) 07:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

reply to timrollpickering: Why it's so great??? Freedom. Sweet Liberty. "Give me liberty or give me death" as Patrick Henry said. The Americans would never give up our sovereignty to a monarch. In any case, why did the USA go that route, you say? It is assumed by the Constitution that we would go that route. The burden would be on the President (who would defend the law if passed) to prove to the Supreme Court that such a law would not violate the 4th amendment. The 4th amendment says that the government cannot violate a resident's "persons, houses, papers, and effects" without just cause. So if I have a receiver device on my own property, which does not affect the rights or safety of others, the government has no right to tell me not to operate it. In Britain, the Queen grants you rights (within the Magna Carta). In the USA, it is the right of the government that is restricted, not We the People. This is a fundamentally different view, one that changed the world. I don't need a credible source other than the 4th amendment, it plainly states right there that the government is assumed not to have a right to tell me what to do in my own "house".71.116.101.119 (talk) 04:46, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but the 4th amendment is not enough. Where's a reliable source indicating that this is the considered interpretation of that amendment that bars it? And the UK system is not based on the Queen granting rights. The British system assumes everyone is free unless the law says otherwise and adds restrictions. You're thinking of a continental system and applying a blinkered view. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And is the outrage amongst Americans about the idea of a TV licence because of the 4th Amendment or because it would be charging for something that's currently available for free? As for comparisons between blinkered views of political systems, let's leave that to one side - all I can say is you just confirm the stereotypes of ignorance in the US. Timrollpickering (talk) 07:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

reply to timrollpickering: "blinkered" views of political systems, eh? Does wikipedia not give the system of government in Britain as "constitutional monarchy"? Do members of Parliament not swear allegiance to the Queen personally? Does the oath of enlistment in Britain not refer to a monarch? (when I joined the US Navy, I swore loyalty the USA herself, not Bill Clinton personally. I did swear to follow the legal orders of the current President, but again, not him personally, but his office and his position) Are criminal cases in Britain not brought by "the Crown", as opposed to the USA where they are brought by "the People of the United States of America?" I don't think my view is blinkered at all, sir. It is supported by centuries of legal precedent in Britain. The world knows that the United States of America is the oldest republic. There are far older countries, but none that have been have a republic continuously since July 4th, 1776. Yes, in practice, the Queen does not often exercise her considerable power, but as Alexander Hamilton wrote in The Federalist Papers, "because the King does not USE a certain power does not mean that he does not HAVE it." When they wrote the US Constitution, the King of England had not vetoed legislation from Parliament for some 70+ years, yet we still limited the ability of the US President to veto a law. With 2/3 majority in Congress, the President's veto does nothing and the law is passed. Unfortunately, we do not have 2/3 majority in Congress opposing the war in Iraq or we would have left long ago. Congress has the power to remove funding for the war; if 2/3 wanted to, the President could not do anything about it. In Britain, 98% of the Parliament could vote in favor of a bill, and if Her Royal Highness Queen Elizabeth II refuses to approve it, the bill would not become law. See

http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/public_administration_select_committee/pasc_19.cfm

(continuing my reply to timrollpickering) for the current powers of the Queen of England (exercised in practice by the PM, but nonetheless available to the Queen herself should she choose to use them). In any case, I maintain that the American political system is in fact alien relative to Europe, and the BBC/tv license is a classic example. "The King will take care of us", so we approve of a tv license, having to ask the King for permission to operate a television set. In America this would be an outrageous statement. One might as well propose a "newspaper license", to fund a Department of Newspapers, whereby the quality of journalism in the USA is assured: no one is allowed to have a newspaper present in one's home without getting permission from the President. Nonsense. In the USA, We the People give the government permission to do things, not the other way around. We the People are The Sovereign. That, my dear sir, is the American Revolution. The world has never been the same since. As a result of the American Revolution, we have the Internet, computers, telephones, people who have walked on the Moon, and many other wondrous things.71.116.101.119 (talk) 04:46, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you're trying to be a parody of the steretypical Red State redneck you're doing very well. Yes the UK is a constitutional monarchy but much of what you cite is down to historic tradition - oathes are given to the Queen as it's the monarchy that forged and bound the nation. Ditto criminal cases may be brought in the name of The Crown because no-one's ever got round to updating the wording indicating that the case is brought on behalf of the state. (Most British people would be horrified at the idea that the government can prosecute openly in the name of the people.) And most rationalists in the UK agree that if the monarch did start trying to exercise her powers arbitarily then we'd become a republic almost immediately because people would not stand for it. The Queen's powers act as a reserve in case of an emergency such as an illegitimate government and prevent things from going bad. Plus having a head of state detached from government, whether that's a constitutional monarch or elected President as in the Republic of Ireland, is a much better way to command respect and authority than an executive President like Dubya. And Parliament can remove the funding for war as well and there's nothing a monarch or government could do about it.
You're focusing heavily on the idea that the television licence is permission to watch, when it is regarded as a subscription fee. Technology in the 1920s was such that it had to work this way round rather than through subscription cards. (Remember also the British economy didn't have the 1920s boom that America did, so initially radios and television sets would initially remain luxury items primarily owned by members of a class where in your face advertising was considered vulgar. So the potential for raising income through commercial advertising was limited for many years.) You are not asking the Queen for permission to operate a set - anyone can buy a TV licence and there is no vetting process. That's a different thing from permission to drive (something that can still get taken away in America) etc... And many of the technological developments you admire are the product of scientists internationally and the pressure of war, not some silly document like the US Constitution. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As for the term "licence" it does have a similar "permission to do so" meaning in much of the UK - my driver's licence gives me permission to drive, James Bond's "Licence to Kill" is universally understood as a permit to kill in the line of duty and so forth. However this isn't always how the TV licence is regarded because that's always been seen as a means to fund the BBC (and indeed the anti-licence fee lobby regard it as a tax not some crap about "government permissions" - people in this country do not lie awake in the middle of the night, with a gun close at hand, lest the government comes to get them). If anything it's regarded a service charge or subscription, albeit one on a different basis from only paying for the channels you want. And watching without paying would, under the current system, harm others as the collective effect of non payment would deny the BBC income. Timrollpickering (talk) 07:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

reply to timrollpickering: indeed, in Britain, personal ownership of weapons is denied, because the King wants to be able to lay down the law, that is to say, to be able to force the people to do things. In the USA, it is We the People who would lay down the law against the government, hence the 2nd amendment. I don't personally own a gun, and never have, but I am qualified on 9 mm pistol, 12 ga shotgun, M-14 and M-16 through navy training, as I stood watch with those weapons topside on submarines. In any event, the 2nd amendment right to bear arms is part of what insures that We the People will retain our sovereignty. The people of Britain need not fear a return of monarchy because monarchy never left that country. Denying the BBC income would not harm others, it would inhibit the Queen from transmitting her opinion, and the right of We the People to transmit our opinion is more important. In any case, the USA funds our equivalent of the BBC through the general tax fund, and there is no reason Britain cannot do the same. Having only 5 broadcast TV stations available, however, I would suggest to the Brits that you should eliminate BBC television, so that the people of Britain can transmit on the channels that currently belong to the Queen. Richard Branson has a greater right to voice his opinion than the government, or that's how it should work, and that's how it does work in the USA.71.116.101.119 (talk) 04:46, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gun ownership is restricted in this country not because of some monarchical desire but because parliament, elected by the people, voted to restrict it in response to public demand for protection because they felt safer if it is harder for killers to access guns. We had nasty school massacres and the people wanted an end to them. Unfortunately for Americans too many people think their right to be alive is less important than the right to kill.
The BBC losing income does harm others if it means the BBC has less money to produce programmes, the same way that if half the copies of a sold magazine are taken without paying it overall reduces the quality and quantity for those who do pay. And the Queen only transmits once a year for ten minutes and does so on the main commercial channel as well so it's got nothing to do with that silliness. As for only five analogue channels, this is because of limits on the frequencies available - and the introduction of Channel 5 was chaotic because it broadcast on a frequency used by most VCRs, requiring mass retuning. But with digital television taking off that's irrelevant - I have dozens and dozens on just the basic Freeview package.
And the BBC is frankly more of a voice for the masses than commercial television. The BBC gives ordinary people the chance to express their views, not just the super rich.
Do you also campaign for PBS to be abolished? And I note from the article that in some parts of the US there are broadcast translator taxes - what is this if not a licence fee by any other name? Timrollpickering (talk) 11:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
71.116.101.119, veering dangerously off-topic, but to expand on one point TRP made, your claim that "in Britain, personal ownership of weapons is denied" is demonstrably false, since certain types of shotguns, rifles and even handguns can still be legally owned. That such ownership is so low (<1.4% of the population) is more of a reflection of the lack of interest or perceived need than legislation restricting certain types of firearm. Even at the start of the 20th century, when there were effectively no such controls, ownership was never more than peripheral. Nick Cooper (talk) 13:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Certain US based editors would do well to go and learn a bit more about how the UK and European state works. Your statements are based on a very bad misunderstanding of how European and the British states work. In the UK there is a technical term for what you are talking - it is bollocks ;).

Many UK posters with an understanding of history would find this "the king will look after us" rubbish highly offensive. Arguably, the ordinary people of the UK have only ever got rights or anything by fighting for them (may I direct you to the likes of the Corn Laws where the land owners (who were the only people in parliament) voted to protect their incomes at the expense of causing the masses to starve and the partially corresponding Peterloo Massacre where the army attacked protestors).

Whilst the British "establishment" has perhaps been cleverer than in other countries such as France where (public opinion snapped and) revoloutions occurred, and released pressure only when strictly necessary, across Europe the working and middle classes (i.e. 90% of the population) being denied the right to vote until the late 19th and early 20th centuries has arguably brought a backlash against the landowning classes that remains even today. In that light the European mainstream is significantly to the left of the US mainstream. That doesnt just rule in broadcasting, it rules all over politics. For example, most people in Europe find it bizarre that around 25% of the population in the world's richest country do not get basic health care.

In that light the BBC isnt the Queen's broadcasting service, on the contrary it could be viewed as the people's broadcasting service (compare that with the commercial media that is often owned by vast conglomerates and airs the political opinions of its proprietors (who are usually richer than the Queen). This has again developed not by the wish of the government, the monarchy or the land-owning classes it is more to do with the demands of the electorate which led to the likes of the Beveridge Report attempting to tackle poverty (and before someone says - ignorance was identified as a key cause of poverty in this report - which arguably links to two of the BBC's mission goals - to educate and inform). Thats not to say the welfare state hasnt been expediant for the government, one of the precursors to these developments for example was the number of people who where deemed unfit to fight in the Boer War.

As has previously been mentioned, on the contrary to what US posters seem to think, gun control in the UK is largely down to public demand. See for example, the Dunblane Massacre. This perhaps reveals another difference between the US and UK - Public demand after Dunblane brought about gun control so strict that it is not possible for people in professional sport to practice shooting - in the US it would doubtless have brought a visit by Charlton Heston to the scene to tell everyone how gun control needs to be relaxed.

Equally, whilst there are a few constitutional quirks in the UK (the US system isnt perfect either), that should ideally be removed, most of these are smoothed over by those who hold the power knowing that using said power would mean the end of that power annd numerous other benefits faster than you can utter the words Guillotine Motion. Pit-yacker (talk) 13:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Opinions of TV Licensing Systems Section

I've added a few arguments against TV licensing to balance this section out but to be honest I think the entire thing should be cleaned out, big time. I'd rather just see most of it deleted than have lots of "citation needed" things put in when the statements that are there couldn't be supported by citations anyway. Ben 2082 (talk) 13:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you added the stuff back about subscription alternatives because the DCMS recognized that voluntary subs would be higher the license fee (and logically it must be because some people would not subcribe).

Re advertisements on commercial channels, it is clear that commercial air-time buyers put a value on the time that a captured audience. The DCMS research clearly shows that advertisements interfere with programme enjoyment and it is surely not unreasonable to think that viewers themselves would put some value on the possibility of sweeping away ads from the screen, being the value viewers' put on the free time "robbed" by the channel operator to deliver advertising. Whether that value is higher or lower than the revenues from licensing is a moot point and as far as I know, not answered by any research.--Tom (talk) 19:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding voluntary subs being more than a license fee based system, well, it's hard to say if it would be more expensive overall, for a couple of reasons. First, you need a TV license before you can get sub-based stuff, and this affects the prices sub services charge. You don't get an accurate idea of what voluntary subs would cost if there wasn't a license fee in the first place. There's no reason sub services necessarily have to be more expensive than the license fee, because for example, if there were sub only services for different types of programming, more people might, theoretically, choose to go for them than one license fee for everything. I'm not saying they would, but they could. It depends on how efficiently the broadcasting corporation is run, too.

Re advertisements- well, yeah you would think that but consider that a third of people in the study said that adverts didn't affect their enjoyment of programs. So it's just a majority opinion that adverts affect enjoyment of programs, not a fact. That said I do find that pretty hard to believe after watching some of the car insurance adverts on British TV.

By the way, opinion studies like this don't necessarily prove what people are enjoying. There's a thing in social psychology called cognitive dissonance, that means that people will change their opinions about stuff to improve their self-esteem. Basically this is why sales people use the tactic called low-balling. They give you a slightly lower price than the retail price, you say yes, then they tell you that actually it's going to be the same price as usual. You still say yes, because you unconsciously come up with reasons to support your decision to say yes in the first place, and thus maintain your self-esteem. In a country that has a TV license, if people have always paid it due to tradition, they may unconsciously change their opinion about how enjoyable it really is, to make themselves feel that they're not the kind of person who would waste money on something that isn't enjoyable. Ben 2082 (talk) 13:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should Britain be blue, not red, on the map?

This discussion should be merged with the one below titled - "Britain should be yellow on the map" nazrani (talk) 17:05, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given that Channel 4 is a public-service broadcaster, and one which does carry commercials? 86.132.140.207 (talk) 12:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, because C4 does not benefit from the UKLF in any substantially meaningful way. The colour coding refers to the operations of the sole/main recipient/s of the LF in each country, not all broadcasters in that country. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All right; thanks. I think my problem (and I doubt I'm the only one) was that, until doing some reading around the subject here and elsewhere, I hadn't really grasped that "public service broadcasters" in a UK context wasn't the same thing as "public broadcasters" in the sense of the map caption. 86.132.140.207 (talk) 03:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, given that C4 is a public service broadcaster I do think that the UK should be marked as having advertising and licence fee as funding public broadcasting. The explanation about C4 not receiving licence fee money and domestic BBC channels not carying advertising should just be explained in the UK section. The title of the map is, after all, "Funding of European public broadcasters" and as C4 is a public broadcaster its presence is not properly reflected in the map. I don't see any difference between "public service broadcasters" and "public broadcasters".--Tom (talk) 14:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just too add the UK should be yellow, as BBC licence fee only, but S4C has licence fee (Indirectly), Government grant and advertising. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.108.177.3 (talk) 18:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By that standard many countries should have different colors as they many countries have stations like channel 4 that have public service requirements to fulfill yet is sponsored with commercials. This for TV2 Norway, TV2 Denmark and I think for TV4 Sweden. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.185.142.226 (talk) 12:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BBC is the only company wholly dependant on the BBC Licence fee, and does not accept any commercial advertisements, though it can and does show quite a lot of its own advertisements within programming. As the BBC Licence fee is compulsory for anyone wanting to watch TV, people in Britain don't have a right of choice. Yes, there are commercial broadcasters, and all media have a public service obligation in Britain, whether they be newspapers, radio, tv, or whatever. But we are not dicussing private operators. Channel4 is not a public company, but a private commercial broadcaster, as is Sky TV. Commercial operators are free to accept advertising or subscriptions or whatever model they choose to follow, as they are private entities, privately owned. The current red and blue stripes means nothing taken together and is very confusing. As the above user says, such combo could be applied to many European countries. Much of the rest of the world has rejected this legacy licence in this day and age. nazrani (talk) 17:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A good deal of your statement is either opinion or irrelevant to this article and as a page to discuss the improvement of the article have no place on this page. However, I will make the following observations:
  1. If you check your facts you will find that Channel 4 Television Corporation is state owned. It is currently entirely funded by its own commercial revenue. However, it not altogether clear how tenable this situation is in the long term. C4 itself has talked about a 100m funding gap. Furthermore, up until the early nineties there was a mechanism to top up C4 budget in any year from ITV's advertising revenue should C4's own advertising revenue prove insufficient. This mechanism was removed at C4's request as if C4 made too much money (which they were at the time) I seem to remember the surplus went to ITV.
  2. Besides this ITV1, and Channel 5 (both private companies) have limited PSB obligations. Part of these obligations include being FTA (i.e. subscription isn't an option) and available on all platforms. However, their obligations are gradually being dropped as they are expensive and onerous for commercial broadcasters operating in a multi-channel age were no other commercial broadcaster has these obligations.
  3. Whilst commercial radio has PSB obligations, no other broadcaster (e.g. Sky) has such public service obligations and the press must certainly also have no obligations to do anything.
Thus there is an argument that public service broadcasting in the UK *is* funded by commercial advertising. Pit-yacker (talk) 19:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Para deleted for lack of substance... please provide references or substantiate the claims before adding back

I deleted the following text

However, the television licence scheme has been put under some scrutiny by those who do not own a television. There are many cases in which people who do not own a television are accused of avoiding the licence fee and are taken to court. In the UK there are several examples of this, most notably when a woman received over 200 letters over a 6 month period and eventually sued the licensing company for harassment. A common complaint is that letters sent do not offer enough ways to show that the recipient does not own a television set although several licensing companies have denied these allegations.


The main reason being that the section contains several unsubstantiated claims ("many cases" and "common complaint" are not backed up with numbers; it cites one case without any external referencing to enable the reaser to validate the case really existed. Also, why would the letters ask for information about NOT owning? Surely it is up to the senders to prove that the recipient DOES own. The text is not clear about which country/ies it is talking about though it mentions the UK once. However, there are not as far as I know, several licencing companies in the UK, so the text is even more puzzling. The last sentences also make claims that are not substantiated.

On balance therefore I think it is right to delete this material until further explanation is forthcoming.--Tom (talk) 18:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should reinstate that and ask for citation. Your action could lead to much of the Wikipedia articles/sections being deleted. I am of the opinion that text should only be deleted, if we believe it to be materially untruthful. Having said that there have been many media reports of public complaints against BBC Licence fee and strong arm tactics. There was a big discussion in Parliament about even abolishing this BBC Licence fee, before they compromised and froze this Licence Fee. nazrani (talk) 17:11, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling?

Isnt it spelled license?

Just figured i'd point it out...

This is another difference in US English vs English used in most of the rest of the world. Quite apart from the rules on national varieties of English, as users above are so proud of pointing out the US is a country that doesn't have a TV licence so it would be odd to use a spelling from a country that doesn't have this. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:22, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Miamibasura (talk) 07:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC) I'm just shock to found out that is it pay fee for use TV or Radio ... wow!. I'm from América (not USA), but from my place, just the concept it outrageous!!![reply]

If you got the BBC for your money, I'm sure you'd be ok with it Esquimo (talk) 18:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cyprus should be removed

Cyprus ceased to force tax in electricity bills since 30 Jun 00 http://www.parliament.cy/parliamentgr/008_05/008_05_091.htm "Όπως είναι γνωστό, η ισχύς του νόμου για την εισφορά υπέρ του ΡΙΚ έχει τερματιστεί στις 30 Ιουνίου 2000. " Google Translate to English: As is known, the validity of the law to charge to the RIK has terminated on 30 June 2000. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.7.69.16 (talk) 21:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Britain should be yellow on the map

This discussion should be merged with the one above - "Should Britain be blue, not red, on the map?" nazrani (talk) 17:04, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Britain should clearly be yellow on the "Funding of European public broadcasters" map as all three methods of funding are in use:

  • The BBC is mainly funded by the licence fee, S4C is indirectly part-funded by licence fee via the BBC.
  • C4 and S4C are funded by advertisements.
  • S4C and BBC Alba both receive government grants for their services, S4C from the Department of Culture, Media and Sports, BBC Alba from the Scottish Government through an organisation called MG Alba.
  • And perhaps less relevant, there is of course the BBC's block grant from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office for the World Service.

Clearly yellow to me.

-- Fursday 17:52, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And what percentage of total broadcasting comes from grants? I think you will find it is so small that it is insignificant in the broad scope of things. I would not support such a change.--Hauskalainen (talk) 12:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Surely the point is that an element of direct-grant funding exists, not how much it is. You could argue the toss on this for ages; the grant which pays for the BBC World Service is a fraction of the money the BBC generates through licence fee for its domestic services, but the former has a significantly larger audience than the latter; S4C's grant is perhaps insignificant in monetary terms yet the station is nonetheless the fourth most viewed service in Wales. Alternatively, you might say, Channel 4's advertising revenue of a few tens of millions is largely dwarfed by the billions generated by the licence fee so that too should be ignored on the map. All of these facts are available in the various articles dedicated to these subjects for those interesting in pursuing the subject so there is no need to resort to subjectivity here by dictating some sort of 'threshold'. Much better to stick to the facts. -- Fursday 02:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Japan

I propose that the "dubious - discuss" and "citation" tags are removed from Japan. I can confirm the section is true. In Japan a requirement only exists where enforced by a penalty for non-compliance. There is no penalty for non-compliance. And as for a legal authority to enter premises, if they had such an authority, inspectors would mention it when they come to the door, which they don't. I propose that it's inappropriate to require the citation of something's non-existence: if it was asserted that there *were* a penalty, that would be the subject of documentation. Requiring a citation for something that doesn't exist sounds weird to me. (eg. A splottely tollabockle doesn't exist, because I just made it up: it's a matter of fact that it doesn't exist, not a matter of record.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsuchan (talk • contribs) 13:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Iceland outdated

According to the TV licence FAQ of the Finnish broadcasting corporation (YLE), Iceland no longer has a TV tax (mandatory licence) as of 1st Jan 2000: [19]. Could someone verify this and edit the article accordingly? My Icelandic is not up to the task and no solid information seems to be available in English. FinnV (talk) 19:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One of the refs for the Iceland section is RÚV itself. The page in question still appears valid Pit-yacker (talk) 20:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I realize that there are a lot of people against public broadcasting, and they should have their opinions and views represented on Wikipedia. However, the TV License Resistance's blog seems to have a much broader underlying agenda: pro-BNP/anti-"leftwinger", pro-Israel/anti-Arab & anti-Muslim. AFAICT, the members and owner(s) of the site are more opposed to the views expressed by the BBC than by the concept of TV licensing itself. Is there a more apolitical website that could be linked to instead, or is this site representative of most whom are against TV licenses?--Subversive Sound (talk) 00:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TV Licence Resistance fails as a reliable source, as it is primarily a forum and blog, even before we get to the disagreeable aspects that you mention. Nick Cooper (talk) 11:22, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting site - it doesn't advocate licence dodging, but shows the rather disturbing harassing tactics the BBC and its contractors use against people who quite legitimately do not need a tv licence — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.73.198 (talk) 22:44, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hotter UK

Let me clear -- UK has two forms of televsion expenses collection methods: licensing and advertising. So, why there's RED and BLUE? It should be constantly BLUE. Comments and reactions are open below. 121.1.55.87 (talk) 08:58, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That would be misleading, because it would imply that the main recipent of the licence fee - i.e. the BBC - also carries external advertising, which it doesn't. Nick Cooper (talk) 10:17, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is a big problem with the map I think. The UK is pretty unique in having two different public broadcasters. The BBC (which is funded pretty much totally by the licence income is correctly represented by the red stripe) but Channel 4 which is also a public broadcaster gets only advertising income, which ought to be the orange coloured stripe and not the blue. I assume "commercial" means "funded by adverting and not "subscription". I would recommend that the label for the orange block should be "advertising only" and not "commercial"). Then there is S4C which would need to be a third stripe! In a new colour!! Hmmm it's getting quite complex. There is at least one other issue. Should France be red? I think it should be blue because the public TF channels also carry advertising (see the text).Hauskalainen (talk) 18:09, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Situation in France

Why does the map tell French television is funded by "Television licence only"? Public television in France displays ads. 92.142.197.91 (talk) 23:07, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Finland

Finland don't have anymore television license system.

Sources

South America

So, for the purposes of this article, every single country in South America does not exist?

One would think that even if the article writer(s) were too lazy to research South America's television licence history, they would have at least bothered to mention why the entire continent was omitted. Rmwpg (talk) 02:13, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Liechtenstein

The orange color in the graph for "commercial only" is NOT correct. Although 1FLTV does not receive funds from the media promotion, but small contributions from service agreements and from the settlement for official pronouncements (the national "Service bublic" system). That's where the "Landeskanal" (state's channel) as a broadcaster under state auspices, the State Office for communication denies from its budget. The color green (for "Government grants, and advertising") therefore would be correct.

This will still remain so when in 2015 the expected fee for television licence is introduced, because the public broadcaster "Liechtensteinischr Rundfunk" operates only "Radio Liechtenstein" and no TV station. All official and press references are linked in german interwiki article. --H7 (talk) 12:59, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Television_licence&oldid=588808345"